They don't. Dead people in the U.S. don't have any rights.
This is an interesting question, but I don't think what you're saying is necessarily accurate. Even in cases where the deceased cannot assert their rights, such as a survivorship action by the decedent's estate which turns the case into a 3rd party standing issue, it's still effectively following the doctrine of asserting the rights of others even if the legal fiction is that it's not the decedent's rights being asserted (a quick google gave me a law review article about wrongful death claims under section 1983)
Regardless, any republication of a decedent's manifesto by a media outlet is speech in and of itself, and would accordingly be protected. This same principle is why each republication of libel is a unique and separate violation, for example.
SummaryJudgment on
Some days Blue wonders why anyone ever bothered making numbers so small; other days she supposes even infinity needs to start somewhere.
Yeah, there's really no good reason to share manifestos. The public gets nothing productive out of them and the killer gets what they wanted.
I would say that pointing to Roof's manifesto helped silence blowhards lying about his motive because one could explicitly quote him to them. Pointing out that McVeigh's ideology lead him to blow up all those people was pretty fucking important in discrediting it.
Gatekeepers would not improve that process. We don't want to broaden the definition of harmful speech and you need to think about how stupid and paternalistic that idea is.
Having a killer's words readily available to the public is a public good, and fuck you all for making me realize that.
Yeah, there's really no good reason to share manifestos. The public gets nothing productive out of them and the killer gets what they wanted.
I would say that pointing to Roof's manifesto helped silence blowhards lying about his motive because one could explicitly quote him to them. Pointing out that McVeigh's ideology lead him to blow up all those people was pretty fucking important in discrediting it.
Gatekeepers would not improve that process. We don't want to broaden the definition of harmful speech and you need to think about how stupid and paternalistic that idea is.
Having a killer's words readily available to the public is a public good, and fuck you all for making me realize that.
Manifestos are also valuable historical documents. I have no doubt future historians will be reading and puzzling over all the pages written by today's mass shooters.
Yeah, there's really no good reason to share manifestos. The public gets nothing productive out of them and the killer gets what they wanted.
I would say that pointing to Roof's manifesto helped silence blowhards lying about his motive because one could explicitly quote him to them. Pointing out that McVeigh's ideology lead him to blow up all those people was pretty fucking important in discrediting it.
Gatekeepers would not improve that process. We don't want to broaden the definition of harmful speech and you need to think about how stupid and paternalistic that idea is.
Having a killer's words readily available to the public is a public good, and fuck you all for making me realize that.
Manifestos are also valuable historical documents. I have no doubt future historians will be reading and puzzling over all the pages written by today's mass shooters.
I really doubt that. Future Historians will not look kindly on this period of america, well depending on if we haven't blown up the world by then.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
They don't. Dead people in the U.S. don't have any rights.
Certainly there must be some rights protecting the dead.
Look, let a psychologist, police profile or a professor read it,sure.
Jim Bob from nowhere, Arkansas that also has a grudge and a ridiculous amount of firepower, does not.
No. Psychologists, police profilers, and professors are all just Jim Bob citizens. If it's not classified for national security purposes, then it's made available to everybody. I don't want a country full of second class citizens who aren't educated/rich/white enough to have access to questionable material. If they want to read it and someone is willing to publish it, they get to read it and make up their own goddamn minds about it.
How far enough from a legitimate cause does the speaker need to be before they start censoring him, or what level of violent action needs to be taken by the speaker? If today's shooter is on the "no/little utility" end with regards to his manifesto, where does the line get drawn, and who does the drawing? As someone mentioned, having Ted Kaczinski's and Tim McVeigh's manifestoes was useful is dissecting why they did what they did, horrible that is was, and discrediting it. The Beltway sniper case was another. Going further back, Malcolm X and the black panthers encouraged violence, but I don't recall anything getting pinned on him directly.
SummaryJudgment on
Some days Blue wonders why anyone ever bothered making numbers so small; other days she supposes even infinity needs to start somewhere.
Yeah, there's really no good reason to share manifestos. The public gets nothing productive out of them and the killer gets what they wanted.
I would say that pointing to Roof's manifesto helped silence blowhards lying about his motive because one could explicitly quote him to them. Pointing out that McVeigh's ideology lead him to blow up all those people was pretty fucking important in discrediting it.
Gatekeepers would not improve that process. We don't want to broaden the definition of harmful speech and you need to think about how stupid and paternalistic that idea is.
Having a killer's words readily available to the public is a public good, and fuck you all for making me realize that.
Manifestos are also valuable historical documents. I have no doubt future historians will be reading and puzzling over all the pages written by today's mass shooters.
I really doubt that. Future Historians will not look kindly on this period of america, well depending on if we haven't blown up the world by then.
Yeah, there's really no good reason to share manifestos. The public gets nothing productive out of them and the killer gets what they wanted.
I would say that pointing to Roof's manifesto helped silence blowhards lying about his motive because one could explicitly quote him to them. Pointing out that McVeigh's ideology lead him to blow up all those people was pretty fucking important in discrediting it.
Gatekeepers would not improve that process. We don't want to broaden the definition of harmful speech and you need to think about how stupid and paternalistic that idea is.
Having a killer's words readily available to the public is a public good, and fuck you all for making me realize that.
Manifestos are also valuable historical documents. I have no doubt future historians will be reading and puzzling over all the pages written by today's mass shooters.
I really doubt that. Future Historians will not look kindly on this period of america, well depending on if we haven't blown up the world by then.
I'm just going to ask how you know that? It's impossible to know how future historians will look at our current age, and limiting their access to primary source information of some of the extreme representations of our time certainly won't make their jobs any easier.
Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if Labor had not first existed. Labor is superior to capital, and deserves much the higher consideration. - Lincoln
+3
Options
SurfpossumA nonentitytrying to preserve the anonymity he so richly deserves.Registered Userregular
There's a substantial difference in something being available versus broadly publicized in the news.
It isn't about the content influencing people, it's about the promise of publicity influencing people.
They don't. Dead people in the U.S. don't have any rights.
Certainly there must be some rights protecting the dead.
Newp. There's all sorts of stuff you can get others to agree to do within the bounds of the law. And there are a lot of laws that support the actions by private parties. But American's rights stop at death.
This is an interesting question, but I don't think what you're saying is necessarily accurate. Even in cases where the deceased cannot assert their rights, such as a survivorship action by the decedent's estate which turns the case into a 3rd party standing issue, it's still effectively following the doctrine of asserting the rights of others even if the legal fiction is that it's not the decedent's rights being asserted (a quick google gave me a law review article about wrongful death claims under section 1983)
Agreements between private parties being enforced by law isn't the same as the dead having rights when it comes to government action.
Regardless, any republication of a decedent's manifesto by a media outlet is speech in and of itself, and would accordingly be protected. This same principle is why each republication of libel is a unique and separate violation, for example.
This part absolutely. Media outlets can do whatever they want with the info once they have it for better or for worse.
"Getting rid of guns" would be the end of the country as we know it. A large number of the people buying guns are specifically buying them in the event "the government" tries to take them away, and fully intend to resist with violence. A large number of police officers fall into the protect the 2nd amendment group, and would not be on the government's side. A large number of soldiers in our entirely volunteer military do also. If, somehow, the 2nd amendment was repealed, and a turn in/confiscate order was issued, it'd make the Civil War actually look civil.
No it wouldn't. These crazies are such an insignificant portion of the population that they aren't even worth considering.
I grew up in a household where we did survival drills, including a scenario where we were in an armed standoff with federal agents are trying to confiscate our guns, where Leonard Peltier and Randy Weaver were common topics of dinner conversation.
I recognize that I had an unusual childhood (to put it mildly), but I'm not entirely keen on arguments that the lives of people like my family aren't "worth considering." If there is a gun control option that doesnt result in a rash of local shootouts involving civilians, I would prefer it.
I'm sorry, I care more about my safety walking across campus, getting groceries and going to the movie than I do about the health and mental welfare of the nation's bunker dwellers. That doesn't mean I don't fundamentally feel sorry for you and your family, but I'm not going to base my political decision on how it will effect the nation's Jim Jones wanna-bes.
So, almost safer than anytime in American history, and almost entirely unlikely to cause your death compared to other factors?
You're more likely to die in an auto accident on the way to the movies than to be shot at the movies, particularly if you're out of the very high risk categories.
It's as if for a liberal there's nothing more terrifying in this nation than a gun.
Do you have anything to contribute other than these inflammatory non-sequitors?
Back on topic
What exactly would it take for the US to change the perception of guns? I am inclined to believe it truly is a regional/cultural phenomenon. Growing up in WNY I think I only saw one gun ever, and that was my grandfathers hunting shotgun which likely hadn't been fired for a couple decades. My understanding is that this is not the norm in other areas of the country.
Additionally, I understand rifles/shotguns for hunting purposes. I think I can get behind that. But what is the point of a handgun other than to kill?
ABC and other news sites should release the killer's manifesto to the public someday but not today. The horror's too fresh and the dead aren't yet buried.
The only factions you will see are pro-gun vs anti-gun, and only one side has the guns.
and one side has the american military, which in gun terms is roughly the tank shaped one.
Even if Civil War 2: Electric Boogaloo turned into some right wing Red (White and Blue) Dawn fantasy, I don't know how well that would work.
The amount of emotional distress that has been caused by accidentally killing civilians on the other side of the planet is bad enough, you're going to ask people in the military to shoot at their own neighbors?
They wouldn't be. You would see units sent to locations far from their own base.
Just because you're from Maine doesn't mean you're going to feel good about being deployed to Arizona. You're still shooting at Americans.
If society breaks down to the point of an actual new and modern civil war, all bets are off. I can't even contemplate it. It would be pandemonium. And I don't for a second doubt that Americans can and will turn on Americans - neighbors or otherwise - in certain contexts.
The front page of the UK's Sun newspaper tomorrow is a still from the shooter's video.
Fuck everything about that.
Par for the course for that rag.
Unfortunately The Times and The Telegraph have done the exact same thing.
Awful.
All we need now is for the Daily Mail to do it.
nah, the Mail will have a rant about the evils of mobile phones.
From the tweets I've seen, the Mail have massive stills from the shooter's video on their website, and a link to the video itself. So... yeah. Odds are that's the front page.
And apparently it's not even the worst thing on their site today. I saw someone ranting at them because apparently they have security camera footage of a father throwing his 3 year old daughter into a swimming pool repeatedly. She drowned.
But why push a heinous view when you know you're just going to be killed? When you're dead you're dead and you don't give a shit about anything you once thought. The guy who killed these two reporters no longer gives a shit about anything. So why do it?
Just want to point out that, even from the limited quotes of a longer manifesto, it sounds like the killer's intention was always to commit suicide, and to use his manifesto and Twitter feed as a way to try and shape his posthumous reputation. He didn't kill to publicize his manifesto, he wrote the manifesto to justify the killing he was already going to do. If he really wanted to fight a race war he would have shot a bunch of white strangers (in a church, maybe, for symmetrical retaliation against Roof). What he wanted was to strike at co-workers whom he resented. By writing his manifesto the killer sought to ennoble his personal rage-murder as a righteous political act, an act of war.
With these sorts of killings the personal motivation is also first, and the ideology comes second as a result of personal unhappiness. This specific girl turned me down for sex -> all girls are bitches -> (kills a girl he knows or girls like the one he knows). Ideological murder like Roof's (or McVeigh's, etc) strikes out against strangers as an act of terrorism consciously imbued with meaning. The poignant takeway from Roof's mass shooting was that he almost didn't go through with it once he was actually in the same room with his intended targets--they went from being symbols to being people. But today's killer knew his victims already and had an existing beef with them, at least from his perspective. Nothing about the act itself was symbolic. But even in the act he was filming himself to show people, and he set up the autobiographical Twitter feed and sent the manifesto the news--ie he didn't just leave it lying on his computer to be discovered later. It's not a suicide note or a political call to arms, it's a press release, and the headline he wants on the story is "Man Fights in Continuing Race War", because "Man Kills Acquaintances Because He's Mad They Got Him Fired" is far more shameful to him. He's not killing to push the ideas, he pushes the ideas so he can market and package and brand the killing and himself even after death.
It's culturally embarrassing, in my opinion, that the suspect felt compelled to upload a first-person recording of the act on Twitter & distribute a manifesto, knowing that these would become immortalized etchings of his actions.
The content wasn't important, only the permanence & reach.
With Love and Courage
+2
Options
ObiFettUse the ForceAs You WishRegistered Userregular
But why push a heinous view when you know you're just going to be killed? When you're dead you're dead and you don't give a shit about anything you once thought. The guy who killed these two reporters no longer gives a shit about anything. So why do it?
Just want to point out that, even from the limited quotes of a longer manifesto, it sounds like the killer's intention was always to commit suicide, and to use his manifesto and Twitter feed as a way to try and shape his posthumous reputation. He didn't kill to publicize his manifesto, he wrote the manifesto to justify the killing he was already going to do. If he really wanted to fight a race war he would have shot a bunch of white strangers (in a church, maybe, for symmetrical retaliation against Roof). What he wanted was to strike at co-workers whom he resented. By writing his manifesto the killer sought to ennoble his personal rage-murder as a righteous political act, an act of war.
With these sorts of killings the personal motivation is also first, and the ideology comes second as a result of personal unhappiness. This specific girl turned me down for sex -> all girls are bitches -> (kills a girl he knows or girls like the one he knows). Ideological murder like Roof's (or McVeigh's, etc) strikes out against strangers as an act of terrorism consciously imbued with meaning. The poignant takeway from Roof's mass shooting was that he almost didn't go through with it once he was actually in the same room with his intended targets--they went from being symbols to being people. But today's killer knew his victims already and had an existing beef with them, at least from his perspective. Nothing about the act itself was symbolic. But even in the act he was filming himself to show people, and he set up the autobiographical Twitter feed and sent the manifesto the news--ie he didn't just leave it lying on his computer to be discovered later. It's not a suicide note or a political call to arms, it's a press release, and the headline he wants on the story is "Man Fights in Continuing Race War", because "Man Kills Acquaintances Because He's Mad They Got Him Fired" is far more shameful to him. He's not killing to push the ideas, he pushes the ideas so he can market and package and brand the killing and himself even after death.
Didn't Roof also get rebuffed by a girl and state that black people were taking all the white women?
Also, the reporter and cameraman were not this guy's coworkers.
But why push a heinous view when you know you're just going to be killed? When you're dead you're dead and you don't give a shit about anything you once thought. The guy who killed these two reporters no longer gives a shit about anything. So why do it?
Just want to point out that, even from the limited quotes of a longer manifesto, it sounds like the killer's intention was always to commit suicide, and to use his manifesto and Twitter feed as a way to try and shape his posthumous reputation. He didn't kill to publicize his manifesto, he wrote the manifesto to justify the killing he was already going to do. If he really wanted to fight a race war he would have shot a bunch of white strangers (in a church, maybe, for symmetrical retaliation against Roof). What he wanted was to strike at co-workers whom he resented. By writing his manifesto the killer sought to ennoble his personal rage-murder as a righteous political act, an act of war.
With these sorts of killings the personal motivation is also first, and the ideology comes second as a result of personal unhappiness. This specific girl turned me down for sex -> all girls are bitches -> (kills a girl he knows or girls like the one he knows). Ideological murder like Roof's (or McVeigh's, etc) strikes out against strangers as an act of terrorism consciously imbued with meaning. The poignant takeway from Roof's mass shooting was that he almost didn't go through with it once he was actually in the same room with his intended targets--they went from being symbols to being people. But today's killer knew his victims already and had an existing beef with them, at least from his perspective. Nothing about the act itself was symbolic. But even in the act he was filming himself to show people, and he set up the autobiographical Twitter feed and sent the manifesto the news--ie he didn't just leave it lying on his computer to be discovered later. It's not a suicide note or a political call to arms, it's a press release, and the headline he wants on the story is "Man Fights in Continuing Race War", because "Man Kills Acquaintances Because He's Mad They Got Him Fired" is far more shameful to him. He's not killing to push the ideas, he pushes the ideas so he can market and package and brand the killing and himself even after death.
Didn't Roof also get rebuffed by a girl and state that black people were taking all the white women?
Also, the reporter and cameraman were not this guy's coworkers.
Uh, yes they were. He was fired a year previously from that station. The cameraman reported him to HR for as yet unknown reasons and he accused Alison Parker of saying racist things to him. He was posting about it on Twitter just before he uploaded his videos.
*edit* His personnel files state he was fired following repeated warnings for threatening behaviour towards co-workers.
But why push a heinous view when you know you're just going to be killed? When you're dead you're dead and you don't give a shit about anything you once thought. The guy who killed these two reporters no longer gives a shit about anything. So why do it?
Just want to point out that, even from the limited quotes of a longer manifesto, it sounds like the killer's intention was always to commit suicide, and to use his manifesto and Twitter feed as a way to try and shape his posthumous reputation. He didn't kill to publicize his manifesto, he wrote the manifesto to justify the killing he was already going to do. If he really wanted to fight a race war he would have shot a bunch of white strangers (in a church, maybe, for symmetrical retaliation against Roof). What he wanted was to strike at co-workers whom he resented. By writing his manifesto the killer sought to ennoble his personal rage-murder as a righteous political act, an act of war.
With these sorts of killings the personal motivation is also first, and the ideology comes second as a result of personal unhappiness. This specific girl turned me down for sex -> all girls are bitches -> (kills a girl he knows or girls like the one he knows). Ideological murder like Roof's (or McVeigh's, etc) strikes out against strangers as an act of terrorism consciously imbued with meaning. The poignant takeway from Roof's mass shooting was that he almost didn't go through with it once he was actually in the same room with his intended targets--they went from being symbols to being people. But today's killer knew his victims already and had an existing beef with them, at least from his perspective. Nothing about the act itself was symbolic. But even in the act he was filming himself to show people, and he set up the autobiographical Twitter feed and sent the manifesto the news--ie he didn't just leave it lying on his computer to be discovered later. It's not a suicide note or a political call to arms, it's a press release, and the headline he wants on the story is "Man Fights in Continuing Race War", because "Man Kills Acquaintances Because He's Mad They Got Him Fired" is far more shameful to him. He's not killing to push the ideas, he pushes the ideas so he can market and package and brand the killing and himself even after death.
Didn't Roof also get rebuffed by a girl and state that black people were taking all the white women?
Also, the reporter and cameraman were not this guy's coworkers.
Cameraman was, he worked with him before and supposedly got him fired.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Posts
Several states actually have statutes protecting the dead from slander.
Certainly there must be some rights protecting the dead.
This is an interesting question, but I don't think what you're saying is necessarily accurate. Even in cases where the deceased cannot assert their rights, such as a survivorship action by the decedent's estate which turns the case into a 3rd party standing issue, it's still effectively following the doctrine of asserting the rights of others even if the legal fiction is that it's not the decedent's rights being asserted (a quick google gave me a law review article about wrongful death claims under section 1983)
Regardless, any republication of a decedent's manifesto by a media outlet is speech in and of itself, and would accordingly be protected. This same principle is why each republication of libel is a unique and separate violation, for example.
I would say that pointing to Roof's manifesto helped silence blowhards lying about his motive because one could explicitly quote him to them. Pointing out that McVeigh's ideology lead him to blow up all those people was pretty fucking important in discrediting it.
Gatekeepers would not improve that process. We don't want to broaden the definition of harmful speech and you need to think about how stupid and paternalistic that idea is.
Having a killer's words readily available to the public is a public good, and fuck you all for making me realize that.
Manifestos are also valuable historical documents. I have no doubt future historians will be reading and puzzling over all the pages written by today's mass shooters.
Look, let a psychologist, police profile or a professor read it,sure.
Jim Bob from nowhere, Arkansas that also has a grudge and a ridiculous amount of firepower, does not.
I really doubt that. Future Historians will not look kindly on this period of america, well depending on if we haven't blown up the world by then.
pleasepaypreacher.net
No. Psychologists, police profilers, and professors are all just Jim Bob citizens. If it's not classified for national security purposes, then it's made available to everybody. I don't want a country full of second class citizens who aren't educated/rich/white enough to have access to questionable material. If they want to read it and someone is willing to publish it, they get to read it and make up their own goddamn minds about it.
How far enough from a legitimate cause does the speaker need to be before they start censoring him, or what level of violent action needs to be taken by the speaker? If today's shooter is on the "no/little utility" end with regards to his manifesto, where does the line get drawn, and who does the drawing? As someone mentioned, having Ted Kaczinski's and Tim McVeigh's manifestoes was useful is dissecting why they did what they did, horrible that is was, and discrediting it. The Beltway sniper case was another. Going further back, Malcolm X and the black panthers encouraged violence, but I don't recall anything getting pinned on him directly.
We still read John Brown's last speeches.
pleasepaypreacher.net
I'm just going to ask how you know that? It's impossible to know how future historians will look at our current age, and limiting their access to primary source information of some of the extreme representations of our time certainly won't make their jobs any easier.
It isn't about the content influencing people, it's about the promise of publicity influencing people.
pleasepaypreacher.net
One murdered five innocent people to start a war over race?
I don't doubt that some do but do you know of any that have actually been upheld?
Newp. There's all sorts of stuff you can get others to agree to do within the bounds of the law. And there are a lot of laws that support the actions by private parties. But American's rights stop at death.
Canadians' go on forevs though.
Agreements between private parties being enforced by law isn't the same as the dead having rights when it comes to government action.
This part absolutely. Media outlets can do whatever they want with the info once they have it for better or for worse.
Goddamnit I checked.
Do you have anything to contribute other than these inflammatory non-sequitors?
Back on topic
What exactly would it take for the US to change the perception of guns? I am inclined to believe it truly is a regional/cultural phenomenon. Growing up in WNY I think I only saw one gun ever, and that was my grandfathers hunting shotgun which likely hadn't been fired for a couple decades. My understanding is that this is not the norm in other areas of the country.
Additionally, I understand rifles/shotguns for hunting purposes. I think I can get behind that. But what is the point of a handgun other than to kill?
The Ender made a post about the gun control debate because this thread is on thin ice.
Gotcha. My bad.
Fuck everything about that.
Par for the course for that rag.
Steam | XBL
Unfortunately The Times and The Telegraph have done the exact same thing.
Awful.
All we need now is for the Daily Mail to do it.
Steam | XBL
nah, the Mail will have a rant about the evils of mobile phones.
If society breaks down to the point of an actual new and modern civil war, all bets are off. I can't even contemplate it. It would be pandemonium. And I don't for a second doubt that Americans can and will turn on Americans - neighbors or otherwise - in certain contexts.
So they can do their favourite thing and overuse the word "handset". And then blame it on "the Left"/Jeremy Corbyn. Or something.
Steam | XBL
From the tweets I've seen, the Mail have massive stills from the shooter's video on their website, and a link to the video itself. So... yeah. Odds are that's the front page.
And apparently it's not even the worst thing on their site today. I saw someone ranting at them because apparently they have security camera footage of a father throwing his 3 year old daughter into a swimming pool repeatedly. She drowned.
No. One of the wars was just.
Just want to point out that, even from the limited quotes of a longer manifesto, it sounds like the killer's intention was always to commit suicide, and to use his manifesto and Twitter feed as a way to try and shape his posthumous reputation. He didn't kill to publicize his manifesto, he wrote the manifesto to justify the killing he was already going to do. If he really wanted to fight a race war he would have shot a bunch of white strangers (in a church, maybe, for symmetrical retaliation against Roof). What he wanted was to strike at co-workers whom he resented. By writing his manifesto the killer sought to ennoble his personal rage-murder as a righteous political act, an act of war.
With these sorts of killings the personal motivation is also first, and the ideology comes second as a result of personal unhappiness. This specific girl turned me down for sex -> all girls are bitches -> (kills a girl he knows or girls like the one he knows). Ideological murder like Roof's (or McVeigh's, etc) strikes out against strangers as an act of terrorism consciously imbued with meaning. The poignant takeway from Roof's mass shooting was that he almost didn't go through with it once he was actually in the same room with his intended targets--they went from being symbols to being people. But today's killer knew his victims already and had an existing beef with them, at least from his perspective. Nothing about the act itself was symbolic. But even in the act he was filming himself to show people, and he set up the autobiographical Twitter feed and sent the manifesto the news--ie he didn't just leave it lying on his computer to be discovered later. It's not a suicide note or a political call to arms, it's a press release, and the headline he wants on the story is "Man Fights in Continuing Race War", because "Man Kills Acquaintances Because He's Mad They Got Him Fired" is far more shameful to him. He's not killing to push the ideas, he pushes the ideas so he can market and package and brand the killing and himself even after death.
The content wasn't important, only the permanence & reach.
Didn't Roof also get rebuffed by a girl and state that black people were taking all the white women?
Also, the reporter and cameraman were not this guy's coworkers.
Oh boy I'm sure those 5 innocents were just giddy about getting murdered "for a good cause".
Battle.net: Fireflash#1425
Steam Friend code: 45386507
Uh, yes they were. He was fired a year previously from that station. The cameraman reported him to HR for as yet unknown reasons and he accused Alison Parker of saying racist things to him. He was posting about it on Twitter just before he uploaded his videos.
*edit* His personnel files state he was fired following repeated warnings for threatening behaviour towards co-workers.
Steam: adamjnet
Cameraman was, he worked with him before and supposedly got him fired.
pleasepaypreacher.net
It looks like the NZHerald did as well.
edit: To clarify, this was on their online paper.
No idea what the physical paper looks like. Do they even have one?
It’s not a very important country most of the time
http://steamcommunity.com/id/mortious
And the Daily Mirror. For fuck's sake, people. (And the Mail did it.)
EDIT: The Sun has gone as far as to put "Watch the chilling video at thesun.co.uk" AS A CAPTION ON THE GODDAMN PICTURE ON THEIR FRONT COVER. :evil:
Steam | XBL